Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biomatters


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. I agree with the nominator's point that WP:LOTSOFGHITS is not an indication of notability. I am open to userifying if believes they can go beyond what is there now and are willing to submit their draft to AFC for review by an uninvolved editor § FreeRangeFrog  croak 20:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Biomatters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This started at List of bioinformatics companies, where I noticed both Geneious (a product) and Biomatters were listed. After removing the product, I noticed the product wasn't sourceable, so redirected to the company (this article). Then noticed the only source was a blog on their own website, and couldn't find anything that passed WP:RS using the most generous of definitions, so here we are. Fails WP:CORP. Dennis 2&cent; 14:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Info from an independent source has now been added to the article. Nurg (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though the primary focus of the article isn't Biomatters, that is still respectable coverage, but by itself, falls short of WP:CORP. Still, better than what was there, so the effort is appreciated.  If we had a couple more like this, it would be easy to withdraw on.  Dennis - 2&cent; 23:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is sub-standard, but even with a fairly rudimentary Google search is mentioned in national magazines and newspapers, has won NZ awards, and is international in spread. Should readily clear any objections with a bit of work NealeFamily (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't that has insufficient "mentions", it is a lack of WP:SIGCOV or awards of any importance. WP:CORP requires that. If it has any real coverage, actual articles from reliable sources, by all means, provide the links, but simply seeing their name mentioned randomly in a google search isn't enough. What NZ awards?  Are these notable awards? etc.Dennis - 2&cent; 17:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done a quick upgrade on the article with purely on line sources (some were self promotional so not RS, but until I find a better source I have used them to verify some statements made). The company is international, has a product in global use, and has had coverage in the major papers within NZ. In its context it is notable enough to remain meeting both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Someone with access to scientific papers should be able to add from what is now there NealeFamily (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but those new links are utter and total garbage. Those are links to instruction guides, the Reuters link was a press release from Business Wire.  What you are doing is link padding with promotional links, and frankly, that is worse than NO links.  All you have done is waste a great deal of time, forcing someone to read through all of those. The Computerworld is RS but it is about Candace Kinser, not Biomatters. The NZ Herald is fine but local. The rest is garbage that fails WP:RS.  A flood of bad links doesn't help the reader, nor demonstrate notability.  While it is not typical, I would ask for a third relisting, as only two people have opined here and we need more input.  Dennis - 2&cent; 00:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.